738 F.

2d 85
1984 A.M.C. 2841

LIBERIAN VERTEX TRANSPORTS, INC., as owner of the

Ore/Oil
Motor Vessel World Kingdom, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ASSOCIATED BULK CARRIERS, LTD., of Hamilton,
Bermuda, as
Time Charterer under a Texacotime II Charter Party
dated April 2, 1982, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 1273, Docket 84-7153.

United States Court of Appeals,

Second Circuit.
Argued May 25, 1984.
Decided June 29, 1984.

Charles L. Trowbridge, New York City (Walker & Corsa, Jon W. Zinke,
Kathleen V. McQuilling, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiffappellant.
Anthony J. Mavronicolas, New York City (Hill, Rivkins, Carey,
Loesberg, O'Brien & Mulroy, Francis J. O'Brien, Isabelle B. Roux, New
York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee.
Before FEINBERG, Chief Judge, and MESKILL and KEARSE, Circuit
Judges.
FEINBERG, Chief Judge:

Liberian Vertex Transports, Inc. (LVT), appeals from an order of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Kevin Thomas
Duffy, J., denying LVT's petition to confirm a partial final arbitration award
against appellee Associated Bulk Carriers, Ltd. (ABC), and granting appellee's
cross-petition to vacate the award. For reasons stated below, we find that Judge
Duffy's order was not an appealable final order, and we dismiss the appeal.

I.
2

In April 1982, LVT, as owner, and ABC, as charterer, entered into a charter
party, pursuant to which ABC agreed to hire from LVT the vessel WORLD
KINGDOM. The agreement called for the arbitration of disputes.

The vessel was redelivered in March 1983. Both LVT and ABC then prepared a
final monthly statement of amounts due under the charter party. LVT's
calculation indicated a balance due LVT of $220,286.71. In contrast, ABC's
statement indicated a credit due ABC of $5,694.89. LVT then demanded
arbitration pursuant to the charter party's arbitration clause and the case was
submitted to a panel of three arbitrators. LVT sought an immediate partial final
award of $125,841.19 on four claims: (1) $67,463.68 withheld by ABC as an
offset for a cargo shortage claim raised against ABC by a sub-charterer of the
vessel; (2) $4,377.51 for an additional day of hire, not paid because of what
LVT alleged was a mathematical error; (3) $50,000 as a loading bonus; and (4)
$4,000 as a cleaning bonus for making the vessel suitable for oil cargo in
September 1982. LVT also sought interest, costs and attorney's fees. LVT
argued that a partial final award as to these claims was appropriate because
ABC's non-payment was clearly unjustified and in violation of the charter party.

LVT also presented other claims to the arbitrators, but did not ask to have them
included in the partial final award: (1) $17,327.63 as additional hire while the
vessel was cleaned in March 1983; (2) $41,296.94 as additional hire for the use
of fuel during this cleaning period; (3) $4,000 as a bonus for such cleaning; and
(4) $73,618.85 as a performance bonus. LVT conceded that an evidentiary
hearing might be necessary before the adjudication of these claims.

ABC raised defenses to each of the claims that LVT sought to include in the
partial final award. It also asserted that it was entitled to offsets of $25,327.13
as a result of a "slow pumping" claim, $9,121.89 for expenses that should have
been borne by LVT but were in fact disbursed by ABC, and $58,606.58 for hire
improperly included in LVT's final statement. ABC also argued that it would be
inappropriate for the arbitrators to enter a partial final award.

An interim decision and partial final award was issued in November 1983, with
one arbitrator dissenting. LVT was awarded the full $125,841.19 that it sought,
plus interest. The panel's majority noted that a partial final award was
appropriate because the issues decided in the award were not "factually
dependent upon those issues which ha[d] not yet been considered." It found that
"uncontested hire is separable from contested hire, which will be dealt with at a

later date." The dissenting arbitrator disagreed. He stated that the dispute did
not present any separable issues, as the relevant question was "the amount of
final hire owing under the charter, not whether one or more segments of this
hire were deducted in error." He added:
7 segregate this issue into what appears to be disputed and undisputed portions,
To
always an imprecise art in the early stages of an arbitration, is, I submit, inconsistent
with prior arbitration practice and can only result in needlessly fragmenting these
proceedings. There can be no finality in the disposition of this issue until all claims
pertaining to it are adjudicated.
8

LVT then petitioned the district court for an order confirming the award. ABC
cross-petitioned for an order vacating the award. Judge Duffy refused to
confirm the award on the ground that it was not a "final and definitive award"
within the meaning of 9 U.S.C. Sec. 10(d). Thus, he denied LVT's petition and
granted ABC's cross-petition. This appeal by LVT followed.

II.
9

The threshold question before us is whether Judge Duffy's order is appealable

under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291, which grants the courts of appeals jurisdiction over
"appeals from all final decisions of the district courts." Relying principally on
Stathatos v. Arnold Bernstein S.S. Corp., 202 F.2d 525 (2d Cir.1953), appellee
ABC argues that the order is not a "final decision" because it did not put an end
to the arbitration proceedings. In Stathatos, the district court considered a
motion to vacate an arbitration award on the ground that newly discovered
evidence showed that the law firm of one of the arbitrators had once
represented a party to the arbitration. The district court granted the motion,
vacating the prior award and resubmitting the matter to arbitration. Id. at 526.
This court concluded that the district court order would result in further
arbitration and therefore was not appealable. Id. at 526-27. According to
appellee, Stathatos "is a well recognized precedent for holding that an order
vacating an arbitration award leading to a continuing arbitration is an
interlocutory order."

10

Appellant LVT suggests in its reply brief that Stathatos was wrongly decided
and during the course of oral argument urged us to overrule it. Appellant also
argues that the scope of Stathatos was viewed restrictively in Farr & Co. v. Cia.
Intercontinental de Navegacion, 243 F.2d 342, 345 (2d Cir.1957), where the
court held that an order directing arbitration was appealable as long as it was
made in an independent proceeding under the Federal Arbitration Act.
Appellant also points to International Produce, Inc. v. A/S Rosshavet, 638 F.2d

548 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 1017, 101 S.Ct. 3006, 69 L.Ed.2d 389
(1981), where this court reversed--without discussing the question of
appealability--a district court order vacating an arbitration award on the ground
that one of the arbitrators should have recused himself because of his role in an
unrelated arbitration.
11

We do not find it necessary to determine whether Stathatos is still good law in

this circuit. We note, however, that the arguments against appealability are
stronger in this case than they were in Stathatos. In Stathatos, if the court of
appeals had concluded that the district court erred in determining that one of the
arbitrators had a conflict of interest, most probably no further proceedings-arbitral or otherwise--would have been necessary because the arbitrators had
issued a final award. In this case, regardless of the outcome of this appeal,
arbitration proceedings over the proper amount of hire will continue: claims
and counterclaims still remain before the arbitrators. Thus, the usual
justification for appealability--that nothing remains to be done in the action-does not apply to this case. See C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal
Practice and Procedure Sec. 3914, at 556-57. Moreover, it appears that the
arbitration over the remaining claims and counterclaims will be unaffected by
the outcome of this appeal. And when those arbitration proceedings finally do
come to an end, one of the parties will presumably seek confirmation once
again; a subsequent appeal would involve substantially the same set of facts
that are the subject of this appeal.

12

For the foregoing reasons, we think that the right of immediate appeal from a
district court refusal to confirm a partial final award on the ground that it lacks
finality threatens to add delay and expense to the final resolution of the issues
submitted to arbitration. Thus, such a right would undermine the major purpose
of the Federal Arbitration Act, which is "to permit a relatively quick and
inexpensive resolution of contractual disputes by avoiding the expense and
delay of extended court proceedings." Diapulse Corp. v. Carba, Ltd., 626 F.2d
1108, 1110 (2d Cir.1980). A right to appeal here would also defeat a major
purpose of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291, which is to avoid piecemeal litigation and
eliminate the need for separate appellate consideration of different elements of
a single claim. See, e.g., Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S.
541, 546, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 1225, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949); Cinerama, Inc. v. Sweet
Music, S.A., 482 F.2d 66, 70 (2d Cir.1973). We therefore see no reason to
allow an appeal in this case.

13

The result we reach is consistent with the policy behind Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b),
under which a district court may order the entry of final judgment on "one or
more but fewer than all of the claims" presented in an action only if "there is no

just reason for delay." If the district court fails to make this finding, its order
disposing of some but not all of the claims submitted to it is not appealable.
Under Rule 54(b), the district court must determine that "the claim adjudicated
[is] a 'claim for relief' separable from and independent of the remaining claims
in the case." Brunswick Corp. v. Sheridan, 582 F.2d 175, 182 (2d Cir.1978).
This is the same determination that Judge Duffy was asked to make in this case,
and that he implicitly refused to make. See Eurolines Shipping Co. v. Metal
Transport Corp., 491 F.Supp. 590, 592 (S.D.N.Y.1980). But cf. E.B. Michaels
v. Mariforum Shipping, S.A., 624 F.2d 411, 414-15 (2d Cir.1980).
14

Appeal dismissed.